muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 12:33pm:



Ive heard this explanation before that the MWP was just a regional event.  I find that the most ridiculous claim I've heard in years.  You expect people to believe that for a 300 year period temperatures were several degrees warmer but only in a few select locations but not others?  apart from the highly unlikely hood of such a  scenario don't you find it peculiar that the places that apparently DIDNT have the MVP are all places that don't have recorded history and all the places that DO have the MVP have extensive historical recording of this event?  ditto for the little ice age.

it is an absurdity to believe this highly convenient explanation which has no proof.  And remember, the first explanation for the absence of the MWP was that it was a MYTH and that the MWP never occurred at all.  It was only after the massive evidence supporting both MWP and little ice age were thrown at then did they concede but then claim that it was only local.

The Hockey Stick long ago ceased being merely bad science and has moved clearly into the fraud category.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:53am:


So do you think those studies can be discounted? There are plenty of better proxies, such as lacustrine varve studies.

I can see that the denialist blogosphere is huge, so I'm not surprised that the layman tends to go with the easier to understand arguments.

If you read the story behind Mann's study it becomes apparent that he was up against the establishment of the day, but was still vidicated by at least 16 subsequent independant studies.

You need to read through the account of the whole fiasco to understand this.

Any minor issues in the statistical treatment  had no effect on the final data.

Apart from that, even if there was a global event that was warmer than the temperatures of 1999, it wouldn't be significant, because the underlying cause of the current warming is well established.

Which part do you particularly disagree with?

1. Do you disagree that the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning, cement production and change of land use?

2. Do you disagree with the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

3. Do you disagree with the climate sensitivity? In other words, do you believe that the moisture feedback, albino, cloud feedback etc combines  is negative or low?

If you have an honest position on that, I'm sure that you won't mind sharing it with us.

muso wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:


I have read the entire account and it is quite clear that you have not.  His statistical analysis has been utterly debunked by no less that the worlds leading expert in principal component analysis.  the MWP and little ice age were completely absent despite being proven experiences in history.  the argument that they occurred only regionally is absurd especially when you consider that the regions where they apparently didn't occur all have no recorded history!

Do you realise that Mann's 2000 version hockey stick graph was considered to be so bad that one of his previous major supporters and climate scientist researcher wanted his name taken off the report because it was so appalling?  Most of the supposed 'supporting reconstructions' used the same data and the same methodolology??  where is the surprise that they came to the same wrong answer?

Do you know that, contrary to government rules and established research doctrine, that Mann refused (and still refuses) to release his data or his methodology and it has all had to be reverse-engineered and in some cases obtained via sideways means?  Do you know that one of Manns sidekiicks actually proudly admitted to a senate enquiry that 'cherry-picking of data' was an acceptable scientific method?

But I ask you again to explain why the MWP and Little Ice age - which are indisputable events - do not appear on his graph?  If you can believe that conveniently inhabited parts of the world could be hotter for 300 years but the rest of the uninhabited/primitive worlds was not then frankly, you will believe anything.  That is quite simply, not credible.  But it is at least consistent with the IPCC claim that their climate models were 100% accurate... as long as you take out all the stuff we didn't know, couldn't predict or got wrong.

That's Anthony Watt's account of events.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:41pm:



You really think that the highlighted part is relevant, don't you. Why is it in the slightest bit relevant when similar temperature proxies were used in all studies, not just in Europe. Anecdotal evidence is totally irrelevant.

There was no technology anywhere during this period for the accurate measurement of temperature. Are you claiming that during the medieval period, that the Vikings were more advanced than the Arabs or the Chinese?

Your argument borders on the ridiculous.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:29am:


OK, I thought I knew about the Viking settlements in Greenland as I've read all the sagas in Norse. Please provide evidence that they sailed North of Greenland, and evidence of Northern Greenland cemetaries.

I'd love to see what you come up with, especially considering that the Vikings cremated their dead. 

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:45am:


it wasn't Vikings burial but locals.